Patrick's gun-control plan strays

In tightening its gun laws in the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre of elementary schoolchildren and staff members, Connecticut now has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the country.

Connecticut, however, is just catching up to Massachusetts on the implementation of restrictive gun laws, which should put in proper perspective the current effort to further restrict gun possession and use in Massachusetts.

There are many proposals, but the ones driving the debates are those being offered by Gov. Deval L. Patrick, who has taken on the mantle of a crusader followingthe Newtown tragedy.

Mr. Patrick is asking that Massachusetts join the National Instant Criminal Background Check System which, for firearms licensing purposes only, would require the courts to input required mental health rulings and orders into the state criminal justice information system.

The governor also wants to create four new crime categories: Assault and battery by means of a firearm, assault by means of a firearm, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and commission of a violent misdemeanor while in possession of a weapon. And he wants to increase the penalties for third and fourth weapons offenses.

He wants to reduce access to high-powered rounds, beef up weapon sales tracking, limit gun purchases to one firearm per month, and prevent any person younger than 21 from having a machine gun.

On Friday, Mr. Patrick appeared with two parents of children killed in Newtown to address a legislative committee on Beacon Hill that was holding its fifth hearing on proposed gun laws.

'Don't wait until our tragedy becomes yours,' said Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son was one of the children killed.

'What happened inNewtown can happen anywhere ... Any of you could be me right now. That's why it is important to make these meaningful changes now.'

I applaud the governor for his commitment tocommonsense gun control measures, and I support the steps the state has already taken, as well as a number of the new proposals.

I have no problem, for example, supporting vigorous background checks and licensing and registration requirements; and no problem supporting restrictions on assault weapons, magazine capacity and highpowered ammunition.

These measures, however, should be separated from others that are being proposed as part of a potential gun control bill.

It seems to me, for example, that we already have laws on the books governing the use of deadly weapons. Why is it necessary to create a separate gun category?

Of greater concern are the governor's proposals to amend the state's 'criminal enterprise' and 'wiretap' statutes. An amended criminal enterprise statute, according to the governor, would allow the targeting of 'broader illegal criminal activity committed by traditional and non-traditional criminal enterprises and organizations, including street gangs and large-scale drug and human trafficking groups.'

Amending the wiretap laws would 'allow law enforcement to utilize electronic surveillance as a tool to investigate and prosecute street gangs, even when there is no connection to traditional organized crime.'

These two amendments have nothing to do with gun control, and thus should not be part of the bill. The wiretap amendment is especially troubling in the host of privacy issues it raises, particularly its potential to severely erode civil rights protections.

If the governor wants to expand state surveillance of private citizens, he should do it in the open, and not under the cover of a gun control bill.